Saturday, May 7, 2005
Pope wants less dialogue in 'America.'
The Vatican has forced the editor of America, the Jesuit magazine, to resign because the magazine had published articles critical of some church positions. Laurie Goodstein reports on the front page of the Times:
In recent years America has featured articles representing more than one side on sensitive issues like same-sex marriage, relations with Islam and whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be given communion. Church officials said it was the publication of some of these articles that prompted Vatican scrutiny.
Even a few conservative Catholic editors expressed surprise about the Rev. Thomas J. Reese's resignation.
"I'd think of him as sort of a mainstream liberal," said Philip F. Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, a news outlet on the more conservative end of the spectrum. "I think he's been reasonably politic. I watched him during the transition, and I cannot think of a single thing I heard that would have put him in jeopardy."
And First Things editor the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus offered the Times this George Willicism:
"It would be fair to say that during the pontificate of John Paul II that America apparently saw itself or at least certainly read as a magazine of what some would describe as the loyal opposition. And, needless to say, there's dispute over the definition of 'loyal' and the definition of 'opposition.'"
Needless to say, I will be intrigued to see Neuhaus tackle the question of how (and where) dialogue should be conducted among Catholics. Imagine, for example, how he might approach the "theory" of papal infallibility now that we've seen how he approaches the "theory" of evolution:
Intellectual freedom and integrity require that all pertinent evidence and lines of reasoning be taken into account in forming speculations, hypotheses, and theories regarding that great question.
Or should Catholics simply conclude that the Vatican has already taken all pertinent evidence into account — the impertinent evidence having been summarily dispatched — and that you can just take the rest of your lines of reasoning right on out the door? Scientists should remain in a state of perpetual suspense about the adequacy of their theories because after all a theory just can't compete with a doctrine, but in matters of faith you can just stop asking questions before someone disputes the amount of "loyal" in your "opposition." It's all so suddenly clear!
Copyright © 2005 by Philocrites | Posted 7 May 2005 at 12:11 PM